Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[snoopy1239]

Chris Bruce 250/1 VALLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ALERT ... how can tikay be the same price as Brucey !!

Must be that Chris is missing this one.

[action man]

ive backed 7 people. One who is over priced and should be in the top bracket others because they are all capable of winning a comp, final is no good to me.

James Dempsey @ 200/1
Tony Phillips @ 150/1
pryian de mel @ 200/1
Sam Trickett @ 150/1
Nick Hicks @ 200/1
Mick Mccool @ 200/1
Pete Linton @ 150/1


i have also purchased 2% in maldini for $66 on tilt

GL my horsies and GL blondes!!

edit-- wouldve backed pab, moomin, gregior, johne147 and geeforce if their prices were up.

[EvilPie]

i think there is one major difference in casinos being allowed to take deductions from the pool, expenses ,if they add 10% to the entry fee ,no problem everyone knows where they stand, what happens if its a small turn out ,would it possible for them to  now deduct a larger % , in other words they may claim in the future it costs £300 for the casino to run a comp regular, if 150 people turn up and paid an entry of $200 ,the pool would be £3000, 10% would be £300 which covers expenses which is no different from paying a fee, i  am wondering if only 100 turn up they would still deduct £300 but the pool is only £2000 a £300 deduction would now be 15%,
i imagine you could get a lot worse deductions than this if the casino can justify it is to cover expenses ,i assume it could be anything up to 27%, dont know for sure though

This is a different, but interesting angle.

FWIW, I don't think Venues make much, if anything at all, from running Poker Tourneys - they rely on money migrating to the House Games.

And once the Accountants, with their almost universally narrow-vsion, latch onto that, they'll love the fact that they have, by precadent, now established the right to dilute as much from the Prize Pool as they see fit. Now, if they were required to add, let's say, a 30% Reg Fee, we'd all be up in arms. But if they said "we take 30% from the Prize Pool", you might never know......

By the way, I politely wrote to Grosvenor Walsall & requsted that they should desist fom calling their Monthly Tourney a £200 Freezeout. It's not. It's a £180 Freezeout. So I know that if it makes 100 runners (we wish!), the Prize Pool will be £18,000.

Didn't realise they were doing this. That's naughty and I can see why there is concern. It's the newer players who will suffer because they won't realise how much is actually being taken.

If I play a £200 freezeout then like Tikay says I expect to be paying £200 plus a fee. If I turned up and found out that I was actually playing a £180 freezeout with a £20 fee I'd be a bit miffed.

Argument over.

Tikay wins!!!!!!

But mathematically it makes no difference whatsoever so long as you can work it out and know about it beforehand

[tikay]

i think there is one major difference in casinos being allowed to take deductions from the pool, expenses ,if they add 10% to the entry fee ,no problem everyone knows where they stand, what happens if its a small turn out ,would it possible for them to  now deduct a larger % , in other words they may claim in the future it costs £300 for the casino to run a comp regular, if 150 people turn up and paid an entry of $200 ,the pool would be £3000, 10% would be £300 which covers expenses which is no different from paying a fee, i  am wondering if only 100 turn up they would still deduct £300 but the pool is only £2000 a £300 deduction would now be 15%,
i imagine you could get a lot worse deductions than this if the casino can justify it is to cover expenses ,i assume it could be anything up to 27%, dont know for sure though

This is a different, but interesting angle.

FWIW, I don't think Venues make much, if anything at all, from running Poker Tourneys - they rely on money migrating to the House Games.

And once the Accountants, with their almost universally narrow-vsion, latch onto that, they'll love the fact that they have, by precadent, now established the right to dilute as much from the Prize Pool as they see fit. Now, if they were required to add, let's say, a 30% Reg Fee, we'd all be up in arms. But if they said "we take 30% from the Prize Pool", you might never know......

By the way, I politely wrote to Grosvenor Walsall & requsted that they should desist fom calling their Monthly Tourney a £200 Freezeout. It's not. It's a £180 Freezeout. So I know that if it makes 100 runners (we wish!), the Prize Pool will be £18,000.

Didn't realise they were doing this. That's naughty and I can see why there is concern. It's the newer players who will suffer because they won't realise how much is actually being taken.

If I play a £200 freezeout then like Tikay says I expect to be paying £200 plus a fee. If I turned up and found out that I was actually playing a £180 freezeout with a £20 fee I'd be a bit miffed.

Argument over.

Tikay wins!!!!!!

But mathematically it makes no difference whatsoever so long as you can work it out and know about it beforehand

Now we are getting there....

The mathematical difference - or not - is not of interest to me. Creeping pillage of Prize pools is.

[totalise]

it seems like people are arguing over each other, of course it makes no difference mathematically if people are aware, but tikay et als position is that people aren't aware

Its sacrosant that the amount of the buyin, pre advertised rake, should be the money that goes into the prize pool, and sites like stars and party have started doing this nonsense, advertising $162 freezeouts when its really $150+$12. I can see why they dont do it, but its shady imo to hide the info. I dont agree that they are "scamming" with the rake, as typically as the buyin increases, the rake as a % of the buyin will fall, so a £180 tourney will likely cost more rake then a £200 as a % of the buyin, and the same again if theres a £1k tourney, the rake as a % of the buyin will be a smaller % then a £180 or a £200, but hiding these fees in my opinion is sleezy and I hate that sites/poker rooms do it.

As for the GUKPT:

Jeff Kimber     150/1
Jim Reid     150/1
Joe Grech     200/1
Keir Fitzgibbon     200/1

FTW

[tikay]

it seems like people are arguing over each other, of course it makes no difference mathematically if people are aware, but tikay et als position is that people aren't aware

Its sacrosant that the amount of the buyin, pre advertised rake, should be the money that goes into the prize pool, and sites like stars and party have started doing this nonsense, advertising $162 freezeouts when its really $150+$12. I can see why they dont do it, but its shady imo to hide the info. I dont agree that they are "scamming" with the rake, as typically as the buyin increases, the rake as a % of the buyin will fall, so a £180 tourney will likely cost more rake then a £200 as a % of the buyin, and the same again if theres a £1k tourney, the rake as a % of the buyin will be a smaller % then a £180 or a £200, but hiding these fees in my opinion is sleezy and I hate that sites/poker rooms do it.

As for the GUKPT:

Jeff Kimber     150/1
Jim Reid     150/1
Joe Grech     200/1
Keir Fitzgibbon     200/1

FTW

Agree with all that. I certainly have not suggested any "Rake Scamming", that's not on my radar at all.

My position is precisely encapsulated in this......

"Its sacrosant that the amount of the buyin, pre advertised rake, should be the money that goes into the prize pool.......",

[Royal Flush]

Joe Grech     200/1

FTW

Will lay you 250-1 here, tbh i will probably lay a lot higher....

[totalise]

Joe Grech     200/1

FTW

Will lay you 250-1 here, tbh i will probably lay a lot higher....

$25 @400/1?

[tikay]

A whopping turnout for tonight's Luton Omaha, a GUKPT Side-Event, nearly 100 runners!

I never got goling really, & did not play particularly well, being pushed off two big pots like a wimp. I had top two both times, & Mr Oppo had big draws & all the extensions, but I was ahead when I folded each time.

I also lost a hefty chunk very first hand when I flopped the nuts, but could not get rid of an angler. The flush rivered, & he showed his Q flush with pride, but I checked on the end & Passed to his bet.

All the faces, or nearly all, seemed to be present, & it was a real party atmo.

Those I recall seeing include Wernick, Goodwin, Jeff Buff, Woodley, Willie, Stu Nash, Compo, Karl, Iwan, Tony Phillips, Lord Linton, Mel Judah, Jaffa Cake, Paul Jckson, Mick McCool, Dave Colton, Murray Brown, Simon Galloway, Lalit & Chandra, etc.

Compo cleaned up in the DC cash again, too - big time!

[tikay]

I bumped into Doc Makawana at Luton last night, one of my oldest friends in poker.

It's bad form to "talk shop" with a Dr. off-duty (he's a proper Doctor of Medicine), so I decided not to ask him about the little probem I've had for the last 11 days.

But then he said "you don't look too well, you OK?".....

"Well, actually", I said, & started to explain the problem. "It's either xxx or" - & before I could finish, he'd named the other possible condition I've contracted. "It's nothing serioius" he said. Music to my ears.

"Everyone's been nagging me to go to the quacks, but nature is the best healer" I confidently continued.

"What - you've not been to the Doctor? Are you mad?. Antibiotics will clear it up in a trice"

And so Doc joined Tom, & Tracey, & Maria, in the "get it sorted" tribe. They are right, of course, & I don't know why I'm being so bloody stubborn. I just am.

It's affecting me 24/7. I'm hurting, all the time, walking is not easy, sitting is not easy, sleeping is not easy, & I'm short-tempered & mardy all the time, & can't be arsed to get on with the heaps of stuff I need to sort out & get done.

I keep thinking "I'll wait one more day, see if it clears up, if not, I'll go to the Docs, & Hossie".

They are all right, of course, & I've decided, I'm gonna go see the Doc.

I'll just wait another day or two first & see if it clears up. Monday latest.

[tikay]

Last night's Luton Omaha result is up already on the blonde Results Page. You really should try our Results Section, it's coming on a bomb. Amazingly, it's the most heavily trafficed part of our Main Site.

All the Luton Fessie Results are up already, including last night - not bad!

It's here.....(just the Luton page).

 http://blondepoker.com/?q=blonderesults/238/Aug2008

Anyway, here's last night's Results.

1st  Ian Frazer -- £10,080   

2nd  Trevor Reardon -- £5,760   

3rd  Steven Wong -- £4,320   

4th  Adam Stoneham -- £2,880   

5th  P Flanders -- £2,020   

6th  Mark Goodwin -- £1,150   

7th  James Brunskill -- £1,010   

8th  Morits Schmejkal -- £860 

9th  Dave Compton 'Jesus Creepers' -- £720

Pippa Flanders was sat next to me, & down to 900 chips at 200-400. It's Passed round to her in the SB & she, correctly, shoves, & I call quickly with K-K-9-T single suited, even though, knowing her, she prob has Aces. She did, won the hand, & ended up 5th! Well played her.

Note the Fish in 9th, too.......

He's now cleared top side of £10k in his last two or three visits to Luton, & has murdered the Cash Games there.

One day, I'll admit he can play a bit. But not yet.....

[AndrewT]

it seems like people are arguing over each other, of course it makes no difference mathematically if people are aware, but tikay et als position is that people aren't aware

Its sacrosant that the amount of the buyin, pre advertised rake, should be the money that goes into the prize pool, and sites like stars and party have started doing this nonsense, advertising $162 freezeouts when its really $150+$12. I can see why they dont do it, but its shady imo to hide the info. I dont agree that they are "scamming" with the rake, as typically as the buyin increases, the rake as a % of the buyin will fall, so a £180 tourney will likely cost more rake then a £200 as a % of the buyin, and the same again if theres a £1k tourney, the rake as a % of the buyin will be a smaller % then a £180 or a £200, but hiding these fees in my opinion is sleezy and I hate that sites/poker rooms do it.

I did notice that Betfair do this - they had a tournament which is listed in the software as a $400 freezeout, and it's only when you delve into the tourney info you see it is actually a $380+$20 tournament. This is even more pernicious than the $162 comp mentioned by totalise, as with that you could guess that there's probably a $12 fee, whereas nice round numbers give you no clue.

We have been arguing at cross purposes on this thread, but that's because some people haven't stated what position they're advocating properly. They started with 'taking a % of the prize pool costs players more money', which is obviously not true, when in fact they meant 'taking a % of the prize pool will allow casinos to be more sneaky and surreptitiously take more money from players who are not wise to what they are doing', which is true, but a different argument from the one originally stated.

One answer is simply for it to be a rule that the % taken out of prize pools is clearly stated on all marketing and advertising which mentions the tournaments - I would have assumed that any changes in gaming regulations which allows % to be taken from prize pools would have this requirement stipulated.

[Colchester Kev]

it seems like people are arguing over each other, of course it makes no difference mathematically if people are aware, but tikay et als position is that people aren't aware

Its sacrosant that the amount of the buyin, pre advertised rake, should be the money that goes into the prize pool, and sites like stars and party have started doing this nonsense, advertising $162 freezeouts when its really $150+$12. I can see why they dont do it, but its shady imo to hide the info. I dont agree that they are "scamming" with the rake, as typically as the buyin increases, the rake as a % of the buyin will fall, so a £180 tourney will likely cost more rake then a £200 as a % of the buyin, and the same again if theres a £1k tourney, the rake as a % of the buyin will be a smaller % then a £180 or a £200, but hiding these fees in my opinion is sleezy and I hate that sites/poker rooms do it.

I did notice that Betfair do this - they had a tournament which is listed in the software as a $400 freezeout, and it's only when you delve into the tourney info you see it is actually a $380+$20 tournament. This is even more pernicious than the $162 comp mentioned by totalise, as with that you could guess that there's probably a $12 fee, whereas nice round numbers give you no clue.

We have been arguing at cross purposes on this thread, but that's because some people haven't stated what position they're advocating properly. They started with 'taking a % of the prize pool costs players more money', which is obviously not true, when in fact they meant 'taking a % of the prize pool will allow casinos to be more sneaky and surreptitiously take more money from players who are not wise to what they are doing', which is true, but a different argument from the one originally stated.

One answer is simply for it to be a rule that the % taken out of prize pools is clearly stated on all marketing and advertising which mentions the tournaments - I would have assumed that any changes in gaming regulations which allows % to be taken from prize pools would have this requirement stipulated.

Never mind all this pony ... when are you gonna get your blog updated ffs !

[AndrewT]

Never mind all this pony ... when are you gonna get your blog updated ffs !

I update my blog manually - once a year.

[tikay]

So, today, thanks to a kind gift, I play the £1,000 Luton GUKPT.

I've only played two GUKPT's so far. Failed to make Dinner-break in one, & failed to make the first break in the other. Not good.

As you know, I've retired from the Big Circuit, mostly, for lots of reasons. The non-stop nipping, & horrendous rubdowns don't impress me much, & anyway, I make enough to get by on the secondary circuit, where the atmo is so much more relaxed, & the banter is better, & I can, pretty much, choose my company. Given a choice between every GUKPT, or playing the "up to £500"'s at Luton & DTD, it'd be a no-brainer for me.

Last year, (or was it the year before?) a very kind soul gave me, without any prompting from me, free entry into the entire EPT Season - worth, I guess, £50,000. The "deal" was that I kept half of anything I won. I never played a single Event, &  had no regrets. It's too easy to accept gifts from wealthy people, "they can afford it", but that does not mean we should take advantage of folks good nature. No regrets? No, not really. Sure I'd like to have played a few, but the burning ambition to play these Big Buck affairs at any moral cost has long gone. I am beholden to nobody, my cupboard is entirely free of skeletons, & I have some very close, & genuine friends in poker. I play little Events, here & there, & enjoy myself more, probably, & get more satisfaction, than anyone in poker, win or lose, because I "people watch", & just play for fun.

I played an EPT, Deauville, & Semi-Finalled, back in '05, & not a single EPT since, & though I quite fancy playing Deauville again this Season, because it's such an awesome place to play poker, but my "EPT box is ticked", & I'll manage quite nicely if I never play another EPT. My WSOP box is ticked, too. Strange how, once having Cashed in these things, the desire to move on to different things takes hold.

So, to today. I'd like to Cash - love to Cash! - but if I do, that'll be abother box ticked, & that wll probably end my GUKPT involvement. Can I cash in one? I'm not sure. Well, obviously I can - but I'd need a lot of luck, as the game has changed so much. The GUKPT, by the way, is a quite splendid Series, & I admire Lord Raab & Co immensely for his architecture skills in devising it. Once it becomes "Reg Fee Free" (but no prize Pool deductions!) it'll be perfect. I think all Tourneys that have a Sponsor should be Reg Fee Free.....but that's another horse.

£1,000 is nothing - to others - these days, & they seem to pile money in with all sorts of poo. A lot of bullets need to be dodged. I sat with a giuy in a £300 last week who called every single Raise, from every player. He must have a money tree in his back garden.

When I retired, my gross wage was getting up towards £100k per annum, but after tax & whatever, I took home about £4k a month. Call it a grand a week. But the notion of throwing £1,000 into a poker tourney still makes me think "HOW MUCH?" Oddly, I earn more now than I did when I was "working" (proper working) but I still baulk at the thought of £1,000 for a Poker Tourney.

The biggest Buy-In I ever paid was £5k - but only because I was daft enough to believe the tosser who said he'd buy half of me. Still waiting for that half.....Another guy bought 25% of me in a $5k jobbie. Rinse, repeat. No more.

Today, I need to try & do well, to thank my benefactors. And, for Contractual reasons, I'll be wearing Sky Poker apparel, & Promoting Sky Poker as well as I can. And I'll do that by going as deep as I can, & getting as many pics of "The Shirt" as possible, & hopefully a few mentions too. Vanity is in there somewhere, yes, but really, I want to make a good showing for those who paid me in, & for Sky Poker, who have been so marvellously supportive of me.

But I'm looking forward to the peace & quiet of Sunday's £100 DTD Freeze, or Monday's Luton £50+£50+£50. That's where I get my kicks now.

OK, of we go.

Shuffle up & Deal!

PS - £1,000 - HOW MUCH? How blase we pokerists are about money? £1,000. Can buy a new car for that.